Instead of digging around trying to find the bodies
couldn't we just look for the headstones? Much easier to spot, if you ask me.
Scientists hoping to find signs of Martian life on the surface of the Red Planet may not be in luck. Any evidence of life could have been destroyed in a meteor impact, according to research published in Scientific Reports, an online open access scientific mega journal published by the Nature Publishing Group. Samples analyzed …
I think that might be a very small needle in a very bug haystack, and the haystack is on fire and hot enough to burn the needle.
We've got the perseids peaking this week. They come in at 37 miles a second. When something hits the ground near that speed the shock breaks quartz crystals - organic compounds dont stand a chance!
I tried a similar experiment with 4 piston-cylinders and long chain hydrocarbons this morning. It was mostly converted to water and oxides of carbon, nitrogen and sulphur, but it did propel me to about 60 miles per hour.
"To help narrow the search for Martian life further, the researchers hope to continue testing out meteorite collisions over a broader range of pressures and temperatures to find the specific conditions needed for organic matter to survive blasts."
Okay, who else thought "Mythbusters" when reading this?
That's a pretty good idea. Whilst finding lichen or some slime mould on Mars would be incredible it's not something that many people are going to be exited about. On the other hand evidence of a technologically advanced civilisation on Mars would re-ignite the passion for the conquest of space.
... ever.
Think of the possibilities if we finally admitted to ourselves that, and collectively moved on.
We could stop spending stupid amounts of money on sending toy trucks to Mars, in search for life that never existed. And then, we could spend that money on something more useful, here on Earth.
> And each unit of money adds 7X it's value to the over all economy.
Really. Can you provide a reference for that figure - 7X?
It's called a economic multipier and it's closer to somewhere between 1.5 times and 2.5 times money spent. And unlike you, I have a reference for my numbers:
San Francisco Fed Economic Multiplier
But hey, don't let me ruin your fantasy.
Here's the thing: what you're saying would be true if the money were spent on something usable here on Earth. As in re-building bridges, roads, tunnels, railroad tracks, etc. Or research for new pharmaceutical drugs. These are all revenue generators.
But shooting toy trucks into space isn't a revenue generator. It keeps some people employed, and that's about it.
As a jobs program, Life On Mars is great. I have nothing against it. Just don't call it science.
Every single time the fundamental premise of the Life On Mars program has been proven wrong, or non-existent, the only explanation for failure its proponents can come up with are excuses.
In any other scientific field that isn't driven so much by PR, the media and tne selling of fantasies to the gullible, the Life On Mars hypothesis would have been abandoned many years ago.
"And then, we could spend that money on something more useful, here on Earth"
Yeah, great and we could going on doing that until an asteroid impact extinction event wipes out civilisation, or lack of space or resouces force our children into canabalism or global war.
Or we invest in the future of our species.
Thankfully not your choice.
Given the way little molecules like to get together and party it seems unlikely to me that in 4.5 billion years "life" is some form did not exist on mars given what we believe the history of the planet to have been. Sure, it looks pretty grim up there now but two billion years ago there's every chance that a few bacteria were having a bit of a chat.
One of the fascinating things about life is we still dont know how it started here. We've got a vague idea what Luca was like - not capable of generating its own energy and probably surviving of energy produce by hydrothermal vents at well above 100C. On earth it seems to have been a one off event around 3.8 billion years ago. Mars is a lot smaller and apart from being round is not geologically very close to earth.
We're very lucky to be here, I'd be really really happy to find some life on Mars but I'm expecting to win the lottery first and I dont do it.
This post has been deleted by its author
I can believe that meteorites can destroy the evidencefor life but not that it has destroyed the evidence on every square metre of the planet. Though I suppose it could have buried it over a ouple of billion years.
"Large areas of the Earth may not pass the testfor organic life"
Ah, you mean Shoreditch!
Ever tried to download a high resolution Mars panorama pictures from NASA Curiosity Rover site? If you examine them closely you always find a number of 'things' with symmetrical shapes, often looking like pieces of machinery destroyed. Some time ago, people who said the Earth was round and revolved around the Sun were ridiculed and burned at the stake. Today those that dare imagine the existence of other civilisations in our Solar system or galaxy are thought of as enemies of the status quo - same as in the middle ages.